Yep, much faster. I have a HDD. Thanks a lot !. But i had to start from scratch and couldn't find an option to convert the existing one to the badgerdb backend.

Can anyone tell me the fastest way to sync the command line daemon with the network. It has taken close to 1 day and i am still at 88000

DERO: 88710/88710 [240533/309552] P 13 TXp 0 NW 1 H/s >>>

I have tried importing http://seeds.dero.io/atlantis/atlantisDB/derod_database.db but that too starts around 90000 odd, so with this speed it will still take days.

It looks like the blockchain can only move with Mega hash power. Something to look into since even with some decent hash power on the pools it takes hours to find a block. The new difficulty change does not fix all problems maybe ? Miner count seem to dwindle and we need them back soon.

Yeah, i realised that later. Can't pools limit the difficulty and reject shares above a difficulty threshold ? Usually new coins give small miners a slight advantage by getting in early. I don't see that anymore with the cryptonight coins. The argument by the devs might be  that the difficutly algorithm takes care of nicehash, but actually it affects small miners even more. The more the time taken to mine a block the more inefficient it will become to mine.

I guess this is the way it is.

All official pools have a nicehash port open. Network at 2MH/s. All new cryptonight pow coins seem to have this hash rate now. Better to mine later if the hash rate drops. My guess is it will.

Devs: Any chance of closing the NiceHast port and give others a fair chance at mining for others with small hash rates. At my hash rate of 300 - 500 h/s it doesn't make sense for me to mine this.

I think TacoBond meant it as a joke. If you have been following Masari, the hash rates have been steady around 1 Mh/s and today its around 1.5 Mh/s. The difficulty is inching towards 200M. Trading volume around 50k on SouthXchange. All in all good signs for the currency but bad news for small miners is you are just starting to mine.

I suggest check with the pool owner on the payments problem first. See http://krx.cryptonight.today/#payments . Payouts are 68k instead of 680k. I am assuming that its only an issue with the display than the actual payments, but cannot check unless i sync with the blockchain

Pool showing wrong reward

 Blockchain Height: 5555
 Last Reward: 67854.0281 KRX

On kreditx.npool.pw

 Blockchain Height: 5555
 Last Reward: 678540.2814 KRX

Are the payments to miners also reduced by a tenth ?

Still similar errors. This is what i did on ubuntu 14.x

cd ~/.kreditX
wget http://kreditx.npool.pw/files/blocks.dat
md5sum blocks.dat
2d48c52a18f36e673b9be974b6494dea  blocks.dat
cd ~/kred/kreditx/build/src/
/kreditXd

The following is in a loop
14:55:13.847173 INFO SYNCHRONIZATION started
14:55:14.601769 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:17.613157 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:17.613359 INFO Block <52d99ec4351a7716ba184c25cba375433501c3d96c4ccb3cc36224c9b9bda1fa> has at least one transaction with wrong inputs: <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:17.621434 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:20.489160 INFO [36.67.23.226:52847 INC] Sync data returned unknown top block: 5396 -> 5554 [158 blocks (0 days) behind]
14:55:20.489160 INFO SYNCHRONIZATION started
14:55:20.599207 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:22.890099 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:22.890778 INFO Block <52d99ec4351a7716ba184c25cba375433501c3d96c4ccb3cc36224c9b9bda1fa> has at least one transaction with wrong inputs: <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:22.898856 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:23.094591 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:27.679868 INFO [36.67.23.226:51495 INC] Sync data returned unknown top block: 5396 -> 5554 [158 blocks (0 days) behind]
14:55:27.679868 INFO SYNCHRONIZATION started
14:55:27.790882 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:29.932794 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:29.933035 INFO Block <52d99ec4351a7716ba184c25cba375433501c3d96c4ccb3cc36224c9b9bda1fa> has at least one transaction with wrong inputs: <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:29.941122 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:31.740461 INFO [198.27.64.94:17120 OUT] Sync data returned unknown top block: 5396 -> 5554 [158 blocks (0 days) behind]
14:55:31.740461 INFO SYNCHRONIZATION started
14:55:32.000218 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:35.112573 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:35.113291 INFO Block <52d99ec4351a7716ba184c25cba375433501c3d96c4ccb3cc36224c9b9bda1fa> has at least one transaction with wrong inputs: <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:35.121374 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
14:55:36.155428 INFO [172.110.20.43:49982 INC] Sync data returned unknown top block: 5396 -> 5554 [158 blocks (0 days) behind]

I am in no hurry. Let me know if you need me to try out anything here.

There is a blockchain sync issue now.

13:51:36.871987 INFO [36.67.23.226:45381 INC] Sync data returned unknown top block: 5396 -> 5536 [140 blocks (0 days) behind]
13:51:36.871987 INFO SYNCHRONIZATION started
13:51:36.975676 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
13:51:38.908076 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
13:51:38.908343 INFO Block <52d99ec4351a7716ba184c25cba375433501c3d96c4ccb3cc36224c9b9bda1fa> has at least one transaction with wrong inputs: <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>
13:51:38.916464 INFO Failed to check ring signature for tx <e9f4f9f3587f33663109bd4e44cc545f1fa06cf339ecad4b5ef64eaa6c3a9591>

This is on a new system with a fresh checkout of the code and daemon startup. Looks like the daemon is stuck at block syncing beyond 5396

Do you have the core file ? Check under / or the daemon directory. If yes try getting a backtrace in gdb and create a github issue. Will help the devs. If you dont have a core maybe for the future increase the core limit size or possibly ulimit -c unlimited

Pool has forked already it seems or has network connectivity issues to the block chain. Lets hope there are no blockchain issues so early into a launch and before we get the windows wallets

EDIT: Looks like network connectivity issues, pool back on the mainnet

Payment seem to be stuck. First two blocks aren't paid yet even after long maturity. Can you look into this.

We also need more miners here. Network hash rate has dropped quite a bit since yesterday.

This will always be a problem with most coins, atleast the ones i have tried to mine. There will always be one pool with 40 -50 % and even more hash rate. Might i add a suggestion, how about removing the pool with the largest hash rate from the annoucement post and if there is any other page with the pool list, there too. Temporarily  ofcourse, say for a week or two and assuming that pool owners will be okay with this. The advantage is that new miners will probably go to other pools, granted there might be some disadvantage in that but it will probably help to balance the hash rate by a slight amount. Also usually i stick with a pool unless there has been a bad experience or extremely bad luck. So even if these new miners are aware of the biggest pool later they might still continue with the pool they are used to.

Might turn out to be a stupid idea but worth a try i think.

Did you try <wallet address>.<fixed diff>

I periodically switch between pools just to distribute hash power. None of the pool "Getting Started" mention fixed diff, but i have used fixed diff with irdpool.ru, ird.cashpool.us and irdpool tk and var diff with the other pools.
<wallet address>.<fixed diff> works with irdpool.ru, ird.cashpool.us and irdpool tk

I would have suggested keeping the same format for irdpool.fr just for consistency but "+" works fine too

I was talking with the BSD license in mind which i assumed is similar to the MIT license, so i am wrong then. But you still have to retain the "Copyright <year> <copyright holder>" part i think. See https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

The MIT/BSD License allows you to do the following
1. Ship binaries without having to provide the source whether its unmodified or modified
2. When providing the source the original copyright should be maintained.
3. All new additions to the source code will by copyrighted by the developer adding those modifications

The source code copyright statement has "// Copyright (c) 2011-2016 The TycheCash developers"

Now even if you give attribution to the CryptoNote developers elsewhere, essentially the copyright statement indicates that the TycheCash developers are the original owners of the source code in question. But that is not true, TycheCache developers only have copyright over the new additions to the code (and i don't think variable/file name changes can be considered new additions).

But I am not the best person to talk about copyrights. At the same time i thought i should bring this to your notice.

Are you based on Bytecoin or Monero ? If yes, then you might have copyright issues. Recently SUMO developers had to fix their source code copyright issues as their initial source code is based on Monero (which IIRC itself is based on Bytecoin) See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1905086.msg29047236#msg29047236

If based on forknote, apparently there are issues with that, See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2892686.msg30087608#msg30087608

Ok i am now confused. So you had an ICO of sorts https://twitter.com/Tychecoin/status/958797159658348544

I am quoting you below

"Tyche Early Access Angel subscription over , Angel Subscription Open Acess on till 15th Feb when the Angel round ends. Minimum subscription 2.5 ETH for 11,110 TycheCoin"

So whats the difference between TycheCash and TycheCoin ?  One block mining gets 300000 odd TycheCash, cheaper to mine a block than buy the tokens.

Sorry i might have misunderstood you, but you are using TycheCash and TycheCoin without distinguishing between the two. Also if these two are the same then 2.5 ETH for 11,110 TycheCoin just seem like a randomly arrived evaluation

Sorry i dont mean to be rude but you seem to have quite a number of followers on twitter which is rare for a new coin launch. Most of these followers do not seem to be connected to this coin in anyway. I might be wrong but there is no need for paid/fake followers. Organic growth will follow a successful coin.